How does this happen?

[tommy44]

I realize that grading is subjective and that a MS64 can come back as a MS63 or MS65 if resubmitted or a lightly cleaned coin could come back straight graded but how do altered surfaces disappear?

This coin sold in a Heritage auction at the January 2014 FUN show

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-half-eagles/half-eagles/1877-5-altered-surfaces-pcgs-genuine-au-details/a/1201-6740.s?

 

… again at the Heritage December 2014 Houston Money Show, this time in a different holder

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-half-eagles/half-eagles/1877-5-cleaning-pcgs-genuine-au-details/a/1212-4579.s?

 

… and finally last night in the Heritage ANA sale

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-half-eagles/half-eagles/1877-5-cleaning-pcgs-genuine-au-details/a/1223-6179.s?

 

Was the coin “conserved” or played with somehow prior to resubmission? Were the photos taken under different conditions? Does this occur often in Heritage auctions?

 

[MarkFeld]

Perhaps the "altered surfaces" opinion was due to the presence of a substance on the coin's surfaces and that substance was later removed.

[Walkerfan]

Was the coin “conserved” or played with somehow prior to resubmission? Were the photos taken under different conditions? Does this occur often in Heritage auctions?

 

Yes, yes & yes....

[BillJones]

Here's one that is even worse because of the amount of money involved.

 

Here is how this 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle looked in the mid 1990s. It was NGC graded as an AU-50, which was 100% accurate with original old time surfaces. Just a delightful little coin! I wish I could have saved it. I begged my biggest customer to buy it. It was a wonderful "put away." He didn't.

 

 

And here it is a couple of years later, scratched up with the original surfaces stripped, in a PCGS AU-58 holder. Ahh, yes the grading service that is ALWAYS better, had taken a screwed with coin and given it eight more grading points, which for this issue adds $72,500 to the value of the piece, or percentage-wise 59%.

 

 

The coin doctor who messed with this piece got a $72,500 reward for ruining the coin!

 

People have attacked me for posting this travesty in the past. "Oh your second photo is at a different angle," they tell me. B.S. I tell them. I KNOW what I saw, and the expert dealer who has handled this coin at least twice confirmed my observation. If it is original the grade is one thing. Under the right circumstances, if it shines, it's something better.

[RWB]

Once a nice, honest EF coin....now a rather trashy bit of stuff with an overgraded label.

[Walkerfan]

Bill, that is painful to look at and is just ruined, now. Makes you question and have concerns for the fate of so many other coins. Someone was handsomely compensated for desecrating it, too.

[coinman_23885]

Perhaps the "altered surfaces" opinion was due to the presence of a substance on the coin's surfaces and that substance was later removed.

 

+1

[BillJones]

Looking at your initial question I would say that the picture of the obverse in the first sale, January 2014, was very overexposed. This may have been done to make the obverse which appears to the source of the coin's problems, look better, or it may have just happened when the photographer was taking thousands of shots.

 

In the second sale in December 2014, the coin had been cracked out and reholdered. Once more the photos are not perfect. The reverse looks a little overexposed this time, and it looks like someone has worked on the coin to try to fix it. It appears to me that the restorer (?) cleaned to the coin to make the obverse look better, and lightened to color of the whole piece. The obverse looks a little under exposed, but the telltale spot in the middle is still there. My guess is this piece was used for jewelry with the reverse exposed for that purpose.

 

The last sale was simply the same coin getting recycled. You do see the same coins in auction multiple times. If it is a major coin, you can sometimes trace it through auctions conducted by the major companies.

[Raisethis2]

While I understand and appreciate what Bill's saying, the flip side to that travesty is that others with similar coins might be tempted to do the same. This will more likely result in the eventual rewarding of owners of similar coins (left untouched) with even greater profits because their coins ARE NOT monkeyed with. Making them rarer still.

 

 

[Walkerfan]

While I understand and appreciate what Bill's saying, the flip side to that travesty is that others with similar coins might be tempted to do the same. This will more likely result in the eventual rewarding of owners of similar coins (left untouched) with even greater profits because their coins ARE NOT monkeyed with. Making them rarer still.

 

 

 

I agree with you and it is already happening.

[CaptHenway]

What happened to that 1796 is a g-d crime!!!!!! That's disgusting!

[coinman1794]

I realize that grading is subjective and that a MS64 can come back as a MS63 or MS65 if resubmitted or a lightly cleaned coin could come back straight graded but how do altered surfaces disappear?

This coin sold in a Heritage auction at the January 2014 FUN show

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-half-eagles/half-eagles/1877-5-altered-surfaces-pcgs-genuine-au-details/a/1201-6740.s?

 

… again at the Heritage December 2014 Houston Money Show, this time in a different holder

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-half-eagles/half-eagles/1877-5-cleaning-pcgs-genuine-au-details/a/1212-4579.s?

 

… and finally last night in the Heritage ANA sale

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-half-eagles/half-eagles/1877-5-cleaning-pcgs-genuine-au-details/a/1223-6179.s?

 

Was the coin “conserved” or played with somehow prior to resubmission? Were the photos taken under different conditions? Does this occur often in Heritage auctions?

 

This is a common occurrence and happens when a problem coin has more than one problem. The grading services typically only list 1 problem on the holder, so they are forced to chose which is the most notable.

 

In this case, the altered surfaces may have been a reference to the halo of dark toning on the obverse. Perhaps someone used heat or chemicals trying to remove copper spots, and etched the coin or caused a reaction with the copper, etc.

 

This series of scans is definitely done with different levels of lighting, but it is still theoretically possible that someone cleaned the coin trying to improve it, causing the cleaning to be more noteworthy than the altered surfaces.

 

I don't think one can say for sure from the pics.

[tommy44]

coinman1794, thanks for your response.

 

Didn't think about the limited space on the label and PCGS only mentioning one problem. So the altered surfaces are still there but the cleaning is now the most prominent problem, right. Double trouble!